Facebook Twitter YouTube SoundCloud RSS

Life’s Final Chapter: Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide, Poverty and the Shadow of COVID

Kristian James
21st Century Wire

Assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia are complex and emotive topics that will certainly evoke fears and concerns, and wrapped in deep ethical dilemmas. The legal perspectives on these practices vary vastly across different countries. In this article, we will delve into the ethical considerations surrounding these issues, and examine some of the different legal frameworks of the United Kingdom and a number of other countries, as we explore the conceivable notions of death being enacted as a solution to poverty and perhaps, a cryptic way to save on the price of healthcare.

We will also explore what is on the cards for the future and explore the broader implications related to end-of-life care and potential darker connections to population control.

Assisted Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia? What are the key differences?

Interconnected and interwoven, they are discerned quite differently.

Assisted suicide involves providing assistance to terminally ill patients who wish to end their own lives. In contrast, voluntary euthanasia refers to the act of administering a lethal dose of medication to a person with their explicit request. The debate of ethics surrounding these practices is down to autonomy, acting objectively as opposed to emotively. Suffering, undergoing pain and distress. Quality of life and the sanctity of life. Supporters argue that individuals should have the right to choose when and how they die, particularly in cases of unbearable pain and loss of agency.

Opponents of this, on the other hand, raise concerns about the potential for abuse, the slippery slope argument, and the role of medical professionals in intentionally causing death. Other opponents fear that if euthanasia was made legal, the laws regulating it could be abused, and people would be killed who didn’t really want to die.

The UK Perspective

In the United Kingdom, the intentional act of taking one’s own life is not legally permitted, regardless of the conditions one may be facing.

Assisting or encouraging another person’s suicide is prohibited by Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961, as amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The Director of Public Prosecutions examines individual cases to decide whether to prosecute. That decision is guided by offence-specific guidelines published in 2010.

Since April 2009, there have been 167 cases referred to the Crown Prosecution Service, three of which have been successfully prosecuted. Even if the other person asks you to kill them, to end their life. This act would carry a murder or manslaughter charge. Anyone legally found to have done so could potentially face 14 years in prison. The Assisted Dying Bill has been on the table in a variety of guises, each time tinkering with the ethics and fine print. The Bill, proposed by Baroness Mercher in May of 2021, has not been successfully enacted into law. Mercher herself is a former social worker and the present Chair for Dignity in Dying.

The arguments for legalisation in the UK revolve around the principles of autonomy and compassion. However, opponents emphasise the need to protect vulnerable individuals and prioritise palliative care. Ensuring there are robust safeguards to alleviating suffering. The British Medical Association has published details on the ethics of physician-assisted dying, alongside legislative proposals published in the Aug of 2021.

It goes without saying there were raised eyebrows about the broader implications that this kind of bill seeks to bring forward. Not for not, the speed in which many emergency acts were brought forward during the “pandemic” of the imposed SARS-COV-2 lockdown, when large numbers of alleged ‘Covid deaths’ were reportedly occurring. Deaths in medical facilities, hospitals and care homes came as the source of the first big “wave” in numbers.

This is a bill that seeks to end the lives of people, under the authorisation of a doctors’ nod if they tick certain criteria, as well as proposals for actions coupled with apparent observations of said actions that are already occurring.

Such a lockstep movement and coincidence are causes for a closer inspection. It is unfair to perhaps conflate the two, despite the parity outcome.

To clarify, the proposed bill does have a set of criteria that has to be fulfilled. The person has to be over the age of 18, or they have a terminal illness, and most of all – they have to possess the mental capacity to make a decision.

A voluntary request to end their life requires that they have been a resident of the United Kingdom for a year. Also, by way of a request to the High Court, there must be support of a fellow Doctor with an independent psychiatric assessment.

At the time, there were radical shifts on the cards – like the temporary “Nightingale hospitals” set to deal with the vast numbers during the Covid panic. Cemetery chapels were to be made into emergency crematoriums with Covid fatalities expected to reach incredible highs. As the pandemic of unknown origin was allegedly sweeping its way around the globe, the famed Operation Warp Speed stateside and similar actions of emergency use authorisation acts were being thrust through.

The coincidence of a prominent legalising death bill coming into the fray around the same time left a sour mistrustful taste in many people’s perception of the state’s motives.

What is the social attitude toward such a topic?

The not-for-profit Dignity in Dying in the UK has been an organisation campaigning for greater choices, control and access to end-of-life care. There is a time when treatments are no longer effective and cruel terminal illnesses make the quality of life unbearable. In June 2017, the periodical survey of British Social Attitudes survey (34th Annual BSA report. 27th June 2017.) asked a question:

“Suppose a person has a painful incurable disease. Do you think that doctors should be allowed by law to end the patient’s life if the patient requests it?”

It turns out that 77% answered that this definitely or probably should be allowed.

The survey also asked if “a person with an incurable and painful disease who will die – for example, someone dying of cancer” should be able to get help to die from a doctor. 78% answered that they should be able to. In a wider lens, a number of countries have taken the decision to support euthanasia and assisted suicide. Interestingly New Zealand and Canada both came to this arrival in mid-2021. Austria, Spain, Germany, and Most territories of Australia, all passed similar bills in the wider window of late 2020 – 2021. Portugal is ready to tick the box in August 2023 having already been passed by the Assembly of the Republic in 2021.

From personal experience: when doctors make choices given external pressures

Many doctors during the pandemic of unknown origins followed protocols and made decisions, they are up against a virus and the influx of patients with apparent respiratory and pulmonary issues, but not in all cases due to the spectrum of severity. Their instructions broadly, were to sedate, treat, free up the specialist bed, and crunch the numbers.

It is quite possible the widely reported large purchases and redirection of Midazolam confirmed by Health Secretary Matt Hancock, and the set up of the Nightingale hospitals may be related to this very choice of action.

From the experience I observed in Intensive Care and Critical Care, I was the only person conscious of the nine in the Critical Care ward, as patients were lined up one by one. The other eight were sedated, their breathing subdued into induced coma-like states with assisted breathing application of ventilators. This too was suggested to me as their best course of treatment,”To send you down, so your body fights the virus with IV antiviral medication and then brought back up once it’s been treated.”

I opted not to, as I was conscious and seemingly already on a course of correction from whatever was restricting my blood oxygen. I learned later those who exhibit such behaviour, being able to talk without cloudiness were dubbed “happy hypoxics”. In the time I was there, I had witnessed two patients die with ventilators. Time Magazine in April 2020 ran a story on a very controversial topic for its time, doctors were speaking out against the use of ventilators and the practice of induced sedation. The headline, “Why Ventilators May Not Be Working as Well for COVID-19 Patients as Doctors Hoped”.

Regarding Dr Cameron Kyle-Sidell an emergency medicine physician in New York claiming that ventilators may be harming COVID-19 patients more than they’re helping. “We are operating under a medical paradigm that is untrue,” Kyle-Sidell warned. “I believe we are treating the wrong disease, and I fear that this misguided treatment will lead to a tremendous amount of harm to a great number of people in a very short time.” Whilst in the hospital, I heard a doctor utter the same to a fellow doctor, wrapped in green space suits with insulated breathing tanks: “This is not a respiratory issue.”

Sourcing from a number of studies, Reuters ran a special report questioning the use of ventilators. Reuters: Special Report doctors rethink rush to Ventilate. The numbers don’t lie:

“In China, 86% of COVID-19 patients didn’t survive invasive ventilation at an intensive care unit in Wuhan, the city where the pandemic began, according to a study published in The Lancet in February. Normally, the paper said, patients with severe breathing problems have a 50% chance of survival. A recent British study found two-thirds of COVID-19 patients put on mechanical ventilators ended up dying anyway, and a New York study found 88% of 320 mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients had died.”

Those who did speak out in favour of any alternative method to this standard treatment which was resulting in high numbers of fatalities, faced heavy criticism and could find themselves being struck off the medical registers and losing their practice licence. Hence, medical professionals who remained silent or complied with certain protocols to protect their employment potentially contributed to increased death rates. In other words, by not speaking out against controversial treatment decisions, professionals may have inadvertently added to the numbers recorded in the death column. Such allegations highlight the delicate balance between centralised public health directives, professional responsibility, personal beliefs, and the pursuit of preserving lives during times of crisis. There is a distinct tone that resonates with people concerned about how patient autonomy, one which has been ignored in favour of cost and performance/delivery targets.

My mother entered the hospital in Early 2017 a number of times, struggling with long-suffering asthma, chest tightness and shortness of breath, mostly due to industrial work in a rubber factory in her earlier working years. Whilst on the ward, she was awake and chatty. Within a week this time, her skin was yellowing, indicating toxins and fluids in her body were not being correctly processed. A doctor visited the bed and told my mother. Quite sternly, without empathy, saying, “Your liver and other organs have stopped working correctly, you are going to die. It is a matter of now, of how and when that will take place.” By that night, in a state of delirium after being transferred, she was in palliative care and died a week or so later. The medication being administered by IV was Midazolam, as I saw the description on a folded register on a clipboard lying nearby. Why would such medication be given to a person who has a recorded history of asthma and breathing difficulties? After a period where I assume Remdesivir or similar was administered to disable the ability of the internal liver and kidneys. Was this, as many have previously reported, a deliberate course of action to direct people towards an end-of-life journey?

Speaking with a former senior Nurse of paediatrics, “RM” in July 2023, who shared insight, adding, “There are these stories, that there is, we hear them on the news… but honestly, I don’t believe them. If anything, it is the opposite. Particularly in nursing. Going out of their way to provide care and comfort for patients.”

Thinning the herd: connections to global population Management

For quite some time, there have been indicators from those in positions of authority in world stage affairs, billionaire philanthropists, and indeed carved in granite – the Malthusian idea that there are simply too many people walking the Earth.

Here we will choose to bite at the low-hanging fruit for the sake of simplicity. In 2010, Microsoft founder Bill Gates said, “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 per cent.”

“Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature”, the artisan scribed deep as the bold first tenet of the mysterious Georgia Guidestones standing in Elbert County, Georgia since 1980. The Guidestones in July 2022 were damaged in an incident involving a bomb, before they were spontaneously removed. There appears to be, for all intents and purposes, numerous statements and a drive towards thinning the numbers of the world population.

A phrase that has gripped the world in recent years, stepping in tandem with the active Covid emergency period from late 2019-2022 was “The Great Reset.” Presently the world population sits at around 8.1 billion. Unfortunately, most people live far below the poverty line, and are unable to meet their basic needs. It seems as if gears turning together to a collective end, and so it’s fair to ask: what if unelected yet world-reaching individuals and organisations spoke about plans afoot and in practice to control, everything from food supplies, and pharmaceuticals to information and more? Klaus Schwab, the chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), is pushing the concept of stakeholder capitalism – private-public partnerships at all levels, who then become the “custodians of society.” The private sector, governments, finance, and civil society are not tied down under bureaucracy and accountability of democracy. This is global governance through technocracy. 

The WEF in Davos has been the hot-ticket annual meeting of the leading figures of this powerful movement. When the Vaccine Alliance (GAVI) and the Coalition of Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), in cooperation with the WEF, formed COVAX, are all locking arms at the World Economic Forum, along with the Bill and Melinda Foundation, GSK, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer – and then forming into partnerships – you know you are witnessing a new ruling power structure. WEF partners include some of the biggest companies in food production; Nestle, Unilever, PepsiCo, Proctor & Gamble. Energy; Exxon, Shell, BP, and Saudi Aramco. In the area of technology and comms; Meta, Sony Group, Ericcson, Intel, Apple, IBM, Google, Siemens, Amazon, and Microsoft. Multiple banks, healthcare, and finance institutions, all harmonising to roll-out their wider policies to support the same outcomes. https://www.weforum.org/partners

WEF and World Health Organization (WHO) have dominated the world conversation in recent years, pre and post covid, driving the health and tech policies connecting the circuits. A period where the unveiling of the hands being played on the table comes to fruition as players at the table are found to have been working together for their best ideological outcomes. How do you provide the ability to support the world population? If there was a much lower number in the population. This is the inhumane managerial mindset in action, and it’s an outcome that many would consider this a success. Their intentions, documents and presentations indicate there is a dedicated plan towards a future in their moulding.

However, the health and well-being of every global citizen may not be within the print of that action plan. 

But maybe, just maybe that is an overreach to suggest that is part of this plan…

Save money, choose death

In October 2022 Cynthia Mulligan of City News, a media organization based in Ontario ran a story of the broken social safety net, affecting the life of an individual Amir Farsoud in the St Catharines area of the Canadian city. He was disabled due to a back injury living with constant pain. His home was a shared living location which he shares with two other people. Property developers have engaged to end the lease of the building. Amir found himself in a desperate situation, with eviction looming. Craven Canadian health administrators offered the choice of medical-assisted suicide rather than live on the streets, where he would be extremely vulnerable. Choosing death over poverty.

In Canada, last March assisted suicide was expanded to include those with disabilities and those suffering from pain regardless if they are not close to death. The report includes a number of associated individuals from the same city who find themselves in similar circumstances where state support isn’t sufficient to cover the rent and seemingly their only way forward is to choose to die. In Mr Farsoud’s particular case, a compassionate GoFundMe was set up for him, “We need humanity to win,” and the campaign raised more than $60,000 Canadian dollars from those moved by the emotive story to find new accommodation and support. His case is just one of possibly thousands in such a difficult predicament. Watch: 


Between the lines of the story, are elements which sent this writer into a deep dark tunnel of distinct possibility. Is wilful ignorance and death their solution to poverty?

It was the Canadian policies of Bill C-7 and the effects since its implementation that I sought out initially, and I learned of a 51-year-old mother, who chose medically assisted death, after a 2-year search for affordable housing. Another Canadian citizen opted to choose suicide, after medical bills and debts mounted due to the government’s Covid debacle. She says the health coverage offered by the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction under which disability benefits are managed in conjunction with the Ministry of Health, including physiotherapy, naturopaths, dental, medical equipment and non-deductible PharmaCare, is not close to enough. Why is Canada euthanising the poor?

The Canadian government’s argument in one breath is that assisted suicide is all about “individual autonomy,” with the other breath boasting of the budget benefits. Even before Bill C-7 went into effect, the country’s Parliamentary Budget Officer published a report on the cost savings it would generate. Passing Bill C-7 would generate an additional net savings of $62 million per year. On top of the $86.9 net cost reduction saving per year when voluntary euthanasia was first engaged. Healthcare is expensive, especially for individuals with chronic diseases, while assisted suicide only costs the public $2,327 per case to the state. Compared to a lifetime of medical expenses. Choosing death costs everyone less, or so it seems.

With all that said, the concept of eugenics certainly comes to mind.

No matter where one is in the world, the state policy of allowing or encouraging individuals to make end-of-life decisions, such as choosing not to pursue life-prolonging treatments, or opting for euthanasia or assisted suicide, could be seen as a means of population control.

Proponents might argue that by providing individuals with more options and support for end-of-life decisions, society could potentially alleviate strain on their respective healthcare systems and the limited resources, particularly in contexts where ageing populations and healthcare costs are forever rising. Allowing individuals to make choices that accelerate the dying process or limit life-prolonging interventions could help address resource challenges. But this is not how this issue has been regarded in history.

So why is this suddenly happening now? Have our values and idea of morals, ethics and faith really shifted that much in the West?

Where does the spirit lie?

Scientific medical areas and holistic spiritual practices in culture rarely agree on what happens to the soul when the last breath is taken. At the allotted time of bodily death, the nature of the particular personality has ceased to exist. Many faiths believe that ethereal locations, as well as the manner in which they die, play a role in the concept of a hereafter. Suicide is a major consideration in many of the different philosophies. This is not looked upon as an option lightly taken in the matter of the eternal soul.

As for the spiritual matters of those directly affecting the lives of others, firstly their conscience will judge them, before a grand period of inflection in the ethical principality and lastly their own faith may judge them. They may have been told to follow instructions, but they cannot hide the ramifications from themselves.

Death as a solution for poverty?

This is the technocrat’s dilemma. Could doctors and politicians be turning a blind eye to the matter of poverty in hopes their deaths will be the solution, instead of providing the care they need? Perhaps this is a controversial, almost flippant question, but consider the drug-sickened streets of many cities around the world where individuals face the terrible consequences of being vulnerable, and all with complex mental health needs. Those in nice offices hope the number decreases, as solution companies syphon the limited money available to ‘tackle’ the challenge of homelessness. Thus, the system is looking down upon them as being lesser.

The number of tent cities and new slums in first-world countries is growing exponentially. The obvious example I’m drawing here would be the likes of Los Angeles where the concept of Skidrow has spread to become now city-wide. The Western liberal technocratically-minded hub of everything, which enumerates levels of wealth standing alongside an incredibly growing number facing desperation. No difference between the slums of Brazil and India. 

A tie between the drug-induced individuals and those in hospital being euthanised, intentionally and not – is the substance, known as Fentanyl, a lethal synthetic opioid. Pharmaceutical fentanyl and illegal fentanyl mixed with all kinds of nasties, is 100 times more potent than morphine, and more addictive than heroin. Under medical supervision it is prescribed to reduce pain and induce muscle relaxation. In the allelopathic setting, the lethal knockout combo as it’s known is Fentanyl and Midazolam. 


There are no illusion that countries and hospitals face monetary challenges for the cost of care per patient, particularly ongoing treatment. Those countries without a nationalised healthcare system are unlikely to support the solution of the poverty issue, and there is no money in homelessness, and for those with no income. No monetary value is to be won in declaring a war on the homeless – there’s simply nothing to gain.  Those countries with a good nationalised functioning healthcare system, it’s a money spinner – when there is an incentive. It’s a money saver for Canada, as discussed earlier. Let’s vote, save $65m and give ourselves a little bonus, not least of all for the sale of lethal drugs.

Notice how said countries and their medical care programs are aligned with the WEF, carbon ‘net zero’, and Agenda 2030 goals. There must be stressed the importance of critically evaluating sources and distinguishing between conspiracy and valid ethical concerns with which this piece overlaps. When the gears align and plans coincide, is someone driving?

End-of-life care in hospitals and care homes involves complex decision-making processes. Medical professionals, in consultation with patients and their families, assess the cost of care, the patient’s quality of life, and the potential benefits and risks of certain treatments. The primary goal should be to provide comfort and dignity, concerns arise when palliative care includes medications that intentionally suppress breathing and induce death. Such practices include the use of medications like midazolam, fentanyl and opioids. Raise deep ethical questions regarding the balance between alleviating suffering and intentionally hastening death, of which there on the surface and in reports appears to be evidence of this occurring.

The timing of the arrival of the alleged virus of unknown origin does again give cause for concern and eyebrow-raising suspicion.

How and why this has been allowed is important to ask, and it would indicate those further up the pyramid have been directing this to happen. Lines such as, “Following orders” and “It’s what we’ve been told”, all demonstrate there is a chain of command. We can speculate to what end, but any questioning of those procedures is met with resistance and condemnation. It is only now, as investigations reveal the practice of the suppression of muscles and breathing, followed by the application of ventilators caused great numbers of deaths.

Loved ones kept from seeing each other in their last moments. The notion that hospitals, medical and care centres had to supply numbers to continue the narrative for intervention action is more than probable – leading to more calls for action – which in turn, was causing death numbers to rise. A deadly gerbil wheel that was incapable of being stopped. In a drive to increase those numbers, there have been reports of hospitals and doctors, getting payouts for covid declarations on death certificates. The ethical lines were stepped across again, and again, and often for financial gain. How widespread… we may never know.

Inevitably, voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide will soon reclaim the spotlight of policy discussion in the UK. It is imperative that we actively engage in this discourse to discern the nuances of the ethical considerations at play. While the pursuit of dignity may be the driving force behind these discussions, we must remain vigilant to the possibility of ulterior motives lurking in the shadows. 

READ MORE BIG PHARMA NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Big Pharma Files





Get Your Copy of New Dawn Magazine #203 - Mar-Apr Issue
Get Your Copy of New Dawn Magazine #203 - Mar-Apr Issue
Surfshark - Winter VPN Deal